Now that he's retired, psychotherapist Hal Brown of Middleboro finds that sharing his ideas is his own personal therapy.

G.I. Jane need not apply?

About this blog

By Hal Brown

Hal Brown of Middleboro earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in social work at Michigan State University and went on to be a mental health center director and psychotherapist. He has always had a passion for writing, and has been on the
...

Hal Brown of Middleboro earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in social work at Michigan State University and went on to be a mental health center director and psychotherapist. He has always had a passion for writing, and has been on the internet since the days you had to learn HTML code to publish a website.

Here’s a new take on sexism in the military. It is newsworthy because it comes from a high ranking Army female colonel rather than a square jawed iron man officer.

The military’s director of gender-intergration studies suggested that average looking women be used in recruiting publicity encouraging women to enlist. She’s been forced to resign.

This has created something of a media storm. Some female members of Congress are outraged. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, thinks Col. Lynette Arnhart’s attitude is “backward” and “offensive.” She and others think it demonstrates an outdated, insulting, and sexist perception that the military still has of women.

The tabloid New York Daily News says “You gotta get ugly to recruit women into combat, a top female Army officer says. Col. Lynette Arnhart has declared war on featuring pretty women soldiers in Army public affairs materials — and Capitol Hill lawmakers are livid.”

An email made public by Politico from Arnhard says “there is a general tendency to select nice looking women when we select a photo to go with an article (where the article does not reference a specific person). It might behoove us to select more average looking women for our comms strategy. For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty).”

People are saying that this implies that attractive women aren’t suited for combat, which they are now allowed to engage in.

I think everyone is wrong in this controversy.

I think both Col. Arnhart and her critics are wrong because they don’t seem to believe that women can see beyond the advertising.

Most women know they don’t have to look like Demi Moore in “G.I. Jane” to enlist, and succeed, in the military. Demi Moore looked great even with her head shaved, and made up to look like she was covered in mud. It’s as if Arnhart thinks “average looking” women, who don’t look like models, won’t bother using makeup because they don’t look like the ads in Glamour.

She also seems to think some men in the military will think attractive women are less capable, and we should pander to their prejudices.

Somebody will have to ask the woman shown in Army Magazine, Cpl. Kristine Tejada (left) of the 1st Cavalry division, if she generally wears eyeliner when she’s also sporting a locked and loaded assault rifle.

I say “who cares?” I believe in truth in advertising, but that there's always some wriggle room as long as products aren't blatantly misrepesented. Nobody consciously believed smoking Marlboros would make them into a rugged cowboy.

The military would do well to use a variety of female soldiers in their promotional material. But I think it is foolish to think one photo will result in undermining the message that women are now welcome to serve in all positions from cooks to combat.

Arnhart wrote in her email, that the photo “shows a pretty woman, wearing makeup while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty.)”

“In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.

Army flacks should instead use photos of “more average looking women,” or at least grubby ones — “women willing to do the dirty work necessary in order to get the job done,” she wrote. “There is a general tendency to select nice looking women when we select a photo to go with an article (where the article does not reference a specific person). It might behoove us to select more average looking women for our comms strategy. For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty),”

I don’t doubt that some people think that physically attractive women use their looks to get ahead. Certainly some attempt to do this, and some succeed. Women, and men for that matter, are attractive because of their personalities. Unfortunately, the word and concept has become interchangeable with physical attractiveness. The military should not play into this unfortunate perception.

Most women who get ahead in fields that require extensive training, and a high level of expertise, and most other jobs, do so regardless of how they look. To think otherwise is sexist.

However, you don’t have to an accomplished social psychologist to agree with what Arnhart says about Army culture:

"As we move toward integrating women into previously closed occupations, we must do so with the understanding that the leadership and culture of a unit -- the history, lineage and social dynamics -- are crucial to successfully dealing with changes that will occur.” (in “5 things to know about soldier 2020” by Amy Haviland)

I agree that Arnhart should have been relieved of her duty, but not for the reasons cited. She she should be replaced because she doesn’t doesn’t get it. But then again, neither do most of her critics.

Right: U.S. Army photo.

If you have an idea for a topic for me to write about, or a question or a correction, for me, feel free to email me here. I will not share your email address with anyone.